Carthage, Canons 110–119

Canon 110. That infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. [a]

Likewise it seemed good that whoever denies that infants newly born from their mothers’ wombs should be baptized, or says that they are baptized for the forgiveness of sins but that they draw from Adam no original sin that needs to be removed by the washing of rebirth, from which it would follow that in them the form of baptism for the forgiveness of sins is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. [b] For what the Apostle says, “By one man sin came into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed on to all men, in that all have sinned,” cannot be understood in any other way than as the catholic church spread everywhere has always understood it. For because of this rule of faith even infants, who could not yet have committed any sin themselves, are truly baptized for the forgiveness of sins, so that what came to them by being born may be cleansed in them by being born again. [c]

Canon 111. That the grace of God not only gives forgiveness of sins but also gives help so that we sin no more. [d] Likewise it seemed good that whoever says that the grace of God, by which a man is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, is good only for the forgiveness of sins already committed, and not as help against committing sins in the future, let him be anathema.

Canon 112. That the grace of Christ gives not only the knowledge of our duty but also inspires in us the desire to be able to do what we know. [e] Also, whoever says that this same grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord helps us not to sin only by revealing the commandments to us and opening them to our understanding, so that we may know what to seek and what to avoid, and also that we should love to do so, but that through it we are not helped to be able to do what we know we should do, let him be anathema. [f]

For when the Apostle says, “Wisdom puffs up, but love builds up,” it would be truly shameful for us to believe that we have the grace of Christ for what puffs us up but do not have it for what builds us up. For in each case it is the gift of God, both to know what we ought to do and to love to do it, so that wisdom cannot puff us up while love is building us up. For just as it is written of God, “Who teaches man knowledge,” so it is also written, “Love is of God.”

Canon 113. That without the grace of God we can do nothing good. [h] It seemed good that whoever says that the grace of justification was given to us only so that by grace we might be able more easily to do what we were commanded to do by our free will, as if, even if grace were not given, we could still fulfill the divine commandments without grace, though not easily, let him be anathema. For the Lord was speaking of the fruits of the commandments when he said, “Without me you can do nothing,” and not, “Without me you could do it, but with difficulty.” [i]

Canon 114. That the saints’ words, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,” are not only humble but also true. [j]

It also seemed good that, since Saint John the Apostle says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” whoever thinks this should be understood to mean that we ought to say we have sin out of humility, and not because it is really so, let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, “But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness.” Here it is clear enough that this is said not only out of humility but also truthfully. For the Apostle could have said, “If we say we have no sins, we exalt ourselves, and humility has no place in us.” But when he says, “we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” he shows clearly enough that whoever claimed to have no sin would be speaking not what is true but what is false. [k]

Canon 115. That in the Lord’s Prayer the saints say “Forgive us our trespasses” for themselves. [l]

It has seemed good that whoever says that when the saints say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses,” they say it not for themselves, since they have no need of this petition, but for the others among the people who are sinners; and that this is why none of the saints says, “Forgive me my trespasses,” but “Forgive us our trespasses,” so that the righteous man is understood to ask this for others rather than for himself, let him be anathema. For the Apostle James was holy and righteous when he said, “For in many things we all offend.” Why was “all” added, unless so that this saying might also agree with the psalm, where we read, “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, O Lord, for in your sight no man living will be justified”? And with the prayer of the most wise Solomon: “There is no man who does not sin.” And with the book of holy Job: “He seals in the hand of every man, so that every man may know his own weakness.” That is why even the holy and righteous Daniel, when he prayed, said more than once, “We have sinned, we have done wrong,” and the other things he there confessed truly and humbly. Nor let anyone think, as some have thought, that he said this not of his own sins but rather of the people’s sins. For further on he said, “When I pray and confess my sins and the sins of my people to the Lord my God.” He did not want to say “our sins,” but he said the sins of his people and his own sins, since as a prophet he foresaw that those who were to come would misunderstand his words in just this way. [m]

Canon 116. That the saints say “Forgive us our trespasses” truthfully. [o] Likewise it also seemed good that whoever holds that these words of the Lord’s Prayer, when we say, “Forgive us our trespasses,” are said by the saints out of humility and not in truth, let them be anathema. For who would pray a lying prayer, not to men but to God? Who would say with his lips that he wished his sins to be forgiven him, while saying in his heart that he had no sins to be forgiven?

Canon 117. Concerning peoples converted from the Donatists. [p]

Again, it seemed good as follows. Some years ago a full council decreed that whatever churches had been set up in a diocese before the laws concerning the Donatists were made should, when they became catholic, belong to the sees of the bishops through whom their return to catholic unity was brought about; but that after the laws, whatever churches came into communion were to belong where they had belonged when they were Donatists. But because many disputes afterward arose, and are still springing up, between bishops over dioceses, which were not foreseen at that time at all, it has now seemed good to this council that wherever there was a catholic party and a Donatist party belonging to different sees, at whatever time unity has been or shall be made, whether before or after the laws, the churches shall belong to the see to which the catholic church that was already there belonged. [q]

Canon 118. How bishops, both catholic bishops and those converted from the Donatists, are to divide the dioceses between them. [r]

So too it has seemed good that if a bishop has been converted from the Donatists to catholic unity, whatever is found where there were two parties should be divided equally between them, that is, some places should belong to one and some to the other. Let the division be made by the one who has been longer in the episcopate, and let the younger choose. But if there is only one place, let it belong to the one who is found to be nearer. But if it is the same distance from both cathedrals, let it belong to whichever one the people choose. But if the old catholics want their own bishop, and the converted Donatists likewise want theirs, let the will of the greater number prevail; and if the parties are equal, let it belong to the one who has been bishop longer. But if so many places are found in which there were both parties that an equal division is impossible, for example if they are an odd number, then after the places that can be divided equally have been distributed, the place left over shall be settled as provided above for the case where there is only one place. [s]

Canon 119. That if a bishop has held for three years a diocese he has rescued from heresy, no one may take it from him. [t]

Again, it seemed good that if anyone, after the laws, converts any place to catholic unity and keeps it for three years without opposition, it should not be taken away from him afterward. But if during those three years there was a bishop who could have claimed it and kept silent, he shall lose the opportunity. But if there was no bishop, no harm shall come to the mother see; when the place that had no bishop receives one, it shall be lawful to make the claim within three years of that day. Again, if a Donatist bishop is converted to the catholic side, the time that has passed shall not count against him. From the day of his conversion he shall have three years in which to make a claim on the places that belonged to his see. [u]